FAA has agreed to answer questions

[MittenDroneMedia]

When will part 107 pilots be able to directly contact the towers to gain instantaneous waivers and authorization so that we do not have to submit requests 90 days in advance?

 

[sar104]

When will part 107 pilots be able to directly contact the towers to gain instantaneous waivers and authorization so that we do not have to submit requests 90 days in advance?

That's going to be handled by the LAANC system, not by pilots contacting towers.

 

[RTheRon]

I have been communicating with some one from the FAA. They are willing to answer questions on my live stream but only in email format not live. So if you have questions, please ask in this thread and see what we can get answers to.

1) Why can we not use the drone serial number for the FAA drone registration process rather than being forced to put the FAA registration number on the drone?

2) I was advised by the FAA drone registration helpline that the FAA number has to be visible on the drone exterior, but according to most other pilots, it can be anywhere that does not require tools to access, like under the battery, could you request that they clarify?

 

[msinger]

2) I was advised by the FAA drone registration helpline that the FAA number has to be visible on the drone exterior, but according to most other pilots, it can be anywhere that does not require tools to access, like under the battery, could you request that they clarify?

FYI, the FAA has a document on this subject here on their website:
https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/registration/media/UAS_how_to_label_Infographic.pdf

 

[LV2FLY]

Here is my question to the FAA. When flying under Part 107 I receive authorization to fly within a Class “D” LAANC area with a 100-foot AGL ceiling. Within that LAANC authorized area there is a building which is 235 feet high.

What rules hold true for flying around the 235-foot AGL building?

• Do I have to maintain the 100-foot AGL LAANC defined ceiling?
• Can I fly 100-feet over the top of the building? This would be a 335-foot AGL ceiling?

When flying outside of controlled airspace the remote pilot is authorized to fly up to 400 feet AGL above a building or object. Does this same logic hold true within controlled airspace with a LAANC authorization?

 

[RBeaton]

It appears the FAA is already taking steps to disperse such information. For example, this document.

Will there ever be a day where all local authorities see such documents and abide by them? I doubt it.

Related to this: (1) If a township or group of towns works together to prohibit sUAS operations by way of land use ordinances, they are creating a de facto no fly zone and controlling the airspace. This contradicts the above FAA memo. Does the FAA have the power to require the towns to provide reasonable public access to the airspace for legal use (especially under part 107)?

(2) Sometimes towns claim to have an avenue for 107 licensed remote pilots to operate legally on public land within the town - "contact the town's business administrator to receive a local waiver to fly legally" - BUT in reality they stonewall pilots who request it, never returning calls/emails/correspondence, and never actually issuing waivers. Again, the town has de facto control over the airspace, contradicting the memo. Can the FAA intervene in such a case to require the town to coorperate with a legally licensed airman?

 

[msinger]

the town has de facto control over the airspace

The town doesn't own the airspace. They can prohibit you from taking off from their ground though.

 

[Drone on]

I give up on flying anywhere near town, people, building, etc...

I fly out in the boondocks.

I have a 107 certificate, and use Airmap, which is borderline useless in Arkansas as the airports choose to not opt in for the instant authorization program.
So, I look for my local area in Airmap, and search for areas outside of the controlled airspace 5 mile radius, which is a HUGE swath of land by the way; especially considering there are so many airports/heliports that when 'connected' together take up the whole town, and then some.

I want to relax and enjoy the hobby.

To be rebellious, I sometimes fly beyond LOS, and fly solo with goggles.
I'm out in the boondocks, so there's little risk to anyone or their property.

I think the boondocks will be our destiny as drone integration into the national airspace will be reserved for the big boy commercial drone operations. By commercial drone use, I do not mean local real estate videos.

What amazes me is that it seems everyone likes aerial views (window seat please), and many have a need for drone as a tool, but so many people are opposed to drones. They are at least are told they are.

My own experience has been favorable approval from others. I have yet to have anyone complain. Most are curious, or want a drone for themselves.

I'm just concerned that one day, the technology will fail, and I'll be liable for the damages. Then, all I can do is point to some obscure company in China (like that will go over well), and say it was their fault.

Screw it!

I'm heading for the boondocks. At least this way, if the technology fails, it's my loss only.

 

[sar104]

I give up on flying anywhere near town, people, building, etc...

I fly out in the boondocks.

I have a 107 certificate, and use Airmap, which is borderline useless in Arkansas as the airports choose to not opt in for the instant authorization program.
So, I look for my local area in Airmap, and search for areas outside of the controlled airspace 5 mile radius, which is a HUGE swath of land by the way; especially considering there are so many airports/heliports that when 'connected' together take up the whole town, and then some.

I want to relax and enjoy the hobby.

To be rebellious, I sometimes fly beyond LOS, and fly solo with goggles.
I'm out in the boondocks, so there's little risk to anyone or their property.

I think the boondocks will be our destiny as drone integration into the national airspace will be reserved for the big boy commercial drone operations. By commercial drone use, I do not mean local real estate videos.

What amazes me is that it seems everyone likes aerial views (window seat please), and many have a need for drone as a tool, but so many people are opposed to drones. They are at least are told they are.

My own experience has been favorable approval from others. I have yet to have anyone complain. Most are curious, or want a drone for themselves.

I'm just concerned that one day, the technology will fail, and I'll be liable for the damages. Then, all I can do is point to some obscure company in China (like that will go over well), and say it was their fault.

Screw it!

I'm heading for the boondocks. At least this way, if the technology fails, it's my loss only.

So most of the airports and heliports in your vicinity have controlled airspace starting at the surface?

 

[Chip]

 

[Drone on]

So most of the airports and heliports in your vicinity have controlled airspace starting at the surface?

No.
I have a class D, and a class C airport within 10 miles of each other. The class D is less than three miles away. Also, according to airmap, I have many heliports scattered about.

Recently, I attempted to fly no more than 10 feet above ground to get a high speed video just grazing above a straw field near my home, but DJI prohibited the MP from taking off. So, I would have to work with DJI to unlock the NFZ, and get authorization from the tower just to fly 10 feet above the ground for a couple of hundreds of yards.

My point was simply that even if you call the multitude of control towers for authorization, you are still taking a chance wherein the risk and reward are out of balance.
I mean that the video gained is marginally valuable, and yet, even though you have authorization, the drone could fly away and land on somebody's car, or head, or X, and you are liable. I suspect that even if you pay for liability insurance, the probability of the insurance company honoring the claim is not strong. I suspect that the insurance company could point to any number of factors alleviating their responsibility, and they could be right. They have lawyers. I have restitution to pay.
Being that the video is marginally valuable (IMO), the potential liability far out weighs the video value. And, I'm not in this for the political debate.
Therefore, I'm heading out to the boondocks, where the video is equally valuable, and the risk is minimal. And, no authorization is required.

I believe that the odds of the drone failing and landing on something or someone is remote. But, it is possible. I believe the claims of drone risk to society are exaggerated. But it is possible.

Out in the boondocks, it is less possible, there's less risk, and no authorization is required; therefore, quiet enjoyment.

 

[sar104]

No.
I have a class D, and a class C airport within 10 miles of each other. The class D is less than three miles away. Also, according to airmap, I have many heliports scattered about.

Recently, I attempted to fly no more than 10 feet above ground to get a high speed video just grazing above a straw field near my home, but DJI prohibited the MP from taking off. So, I would have to work with DJI to unlock the NFZ, and get authorization from the tower just to fly 10 feet above the ground for a couple of hundreds of yards.

My point was simply that even if you call the multitude of control towers for authorization, you are still taking a chance wherein the risk and reward are out of balance.
I mean that the video gained is marginally valuable, and yet, even though you have authorization, the drone could fly away and land on somebody's car, or head, or X, and you are liable. I suspect that even if you pay for liability insurance, the probability of the insurance company honoring the claim is not strong. I suspect that the insurance company could point to any number of factors alleviating their responsibility, and they could be right. They have lawyers. I have restitution to pay.
Being that the video is marginally valuable (IMO), the potential liability far out weighs the video value. And, I'm not in this for the political debate.
Therefore, I'm heading out to the boondocks, where the video is equally valuable, and the risk is minimal. And, no authorization is required.

I believe that the odds of the drone failing and landing on something or someone is remote. But, it is possible. I believe the claims of drone risk to society are exaggerated. But it is possible.

Out in the boondocks, it is less possible, there's less risk, and no authorization is required; therefore, quiet enjoyment.

I'm a bit confused - you are talking about calling airports and towers, but you mentioned being Part 107 certified and are worrying about airspace class. Are you trying to fly recreationally, or Part 107?

 

[Drone on]

I'm a bit confused - you are talking about calling airports and towers, but you mentioned being Part 107 certified and are worrying about airspace class. Are you trying to fly recreationally, or Part 107?

Recreationally, but you still have to have authorization within the five mile radius

 

[sar104]

Recreationally, but you still have to have authorization within the five mile radius

Not if you are flying under Part 107 - in that case the requirements are solely determined by the class of airspace, not by proximity to airports.

 

[ac0j]

Not if you are flying under Part 107 - in that case the requirements are solely determined by the class of airspace, not by proximity to airports.

So, if two people are doing the same flight one as a 107, the other as 336. only one is doing it safely? Sorry, that is ridiculous. I know its what the FAA wants, but come on......

 

[Drone on]

Not if you are flying under Part 107 - in that case the requirements are solely determined by the class of airspace, not by proximity to airports.

That is not my understanding, but I could be wrong
My understanding is that 107 allows you to receive compensation, but still requires authorization for waiver.
I copied this from the FAA website
Part 107 regulations subject to waiver.

• Flying at night (§ 107.29)
• Flying directly over a person or people (§ 107.39)
• Flying from a moving vehicle or aircraft, not in a sparsely populated area (§ 107.25)
• Flying multiple aircraft with only one pilot (§ 107.35)
• Flying beyond the pilot's visual line-of-sight (§ 107.31)
• Flying above 400 feet (§ 107.51B)
• Flying near airports / in controlled airspace (§ 107.41)

I understand that the drone' altitude limit of 400 feet is below the 720, or 750 (don't recall because it is not applicable) of the cyndrical airspace within X miles of the tower.

Using Airmap, which is one of the private parties selected by the FAA to participate in LAANC (Low altitude authorization...), I select both 336, and 107 (separately of course), and while 107 does give less advisories, it still lists all of the towers I have to notify. And, in my area they cover multiple towns strewn together. The purpose of LAANC was instant authorization rather than the current 90 day wait period of the FAA drone authorization process.

Also, flying under 107 is for commercial purposes requires a remote pilot in command, visual observer, and controls operator.
Even though I am certified, I am not under contract, and I am a one man band. Therefore, even though I'm a certified for Part 107, I am flying under 336.

Even if no authorization was required, there is still a risk to other' real and personal property, which IMO outweighs the value of the flight experience and/or video shot. That was the crux of my point/argument.

I have dozens of hours of in town, over the neighborhood, and other video I've shot. I thoroughly enjoyed looking at it when I first filmed it, but now the novelty has worn off.

So, like a landscape photographer, I'm heading out to the boonies where there is little to no risk, no authorization is required, I'm not flying over anyone's head, I can enjoy the outing, and the results are equally valuable.

Having flown for approximately two years (certified in the last six months), I trust the technology, and to a high degree, but not 100%.

107 is not the all to end all.

 

[RBeaton]

The town doesn't own the airspace. They can prohibit you from taking off from their ground though.

Right, I realize this. The problem is that if enough adjacent towns prohibit this and there is a big enough area covered, they are effectively controlling the airspace because there is no way to enter the airspace.

The specific example I have in mind: there is a township that is an island that is 18 miles long and includes 6 municipalities. Operation (takeoff/landing) of sUAS is prohibited. There is no reasonable way to access the airspace over the island. They are essentially controlling that airspace by way of their land use rules. If you can't take off, you can't enter the airspace. My question is can/will the FAA intervene in such a case to compel the smaller governing body to provide a reasonable way to access that airspace?

 

[sar104]

That is not my understanding, but I could be wrong
My understanding is that 107 allows you to receive compensation, but still requires authorization for waiver.
I copied this from the FAA website
Part 107 regulations subject to waiver.

• Flying at night (§ 107.29)
• Flying directly over a person or people (§ 107.39)
• Flying from a moving vehicle or aircraft, not in a sparsely populated area (§ 107.25)
• Flying multiple aircraft with only one pilot (§ 107.35)
• Flying beyond the pilot's visual line-of-sight (§ 107.31)
• Flying above 400 feet (§ 107.51B)
• Flying near airports / in controlled airspace (§ 107.41)

I understand that the drone' altitude limit of 400 feet is below the 720, or 750 (don't recall because it is not applicable) of the cyndrical airspace within X miles of the tower.

Using Airmap, which is one of the private parties selected by the FAA to participate in LAANC (Low altitude authorization...), I select both 336, and 107 (separately of course), and while 107 does give less advisories, it still lists all of the towers I have to notify. And, in my area they cover multiple towns strewn together. The purpose of LAANC was instant authorization rather than the current 90 day wait period of the FAA drone authorization process.

Also, flying under 107 is for commercial purposes requires a remote pilot in command, visual observer, and controls operator.
Even though I am certified, I am not under contract, and I am a one man band. Therefore, even though I'm a certified for Part 107, I am flying under 336.

Even if no authorization was required, there is still a risk to other' real and personal property, which IMO outweighs the value of the flight experience and/or video shot. That was the crux of my point/argument.

I have dozens of hours of in town, over the neighborhood, and other video I've shot. I thoroughly enjoyed looking at it when I first filmed it, but now the novelty has worn off.

So, like a landscape photographer, I'm heading out to the boonies where there is little to no risk, no authorization is required, I'm not flying over anyone's head, I can enjoy the outing, and the results are equally valuable.

Having flown for approximately two years (certified in the last six months), I trust the technology, and to a high degree, but not 100%.

107 is not the all to end all.

Yes - your understanding is not quite correct.

Under Part 107 your require an authorization or waiver to fly in controlled (other than Class G) airspace. The FAA has stated that you can only get that via the FAA portal - not directly from any local airports or towers, and there is no requirement to call the local airports.

Under Part 101/Section 336 the requirement is to notify any airports and towers within 5 miles, which is independent of the class of airspace. The FAA has tried to impose a requirement for permission and coordination in Class B airspace, but the basis in law seems tenuous to me.

And, just to clarify, you are entitled to fly under Part 107 at any time - it doesn't matter whether the flight is commercial or recreational. It's only Section 336 (Part 101) that restricts you to only recreational flights.

 

[msinger]

The specific example I have in mind: there is a township that is an island that is 18 miles long and includes 6 municipalities.

And the entire 18 miles is private property owned by the township? If so, you're out of luck.

 

[sar104]

So, if two people are doing the same flight one as a 107, the other as 336. only one is doing it safely? Sorry, that is ridiculous. I know its what the FAA wants, but come on......

More accurately, the two activities, while similar, have different compliance requirements due to the decision by Congress to exempt hobby flight from any further regulation. That doesn't, per se, reflect on the safety of the activity.